Richard Tunnicliffe, CBI regional director, East of England said: “The CBI has long held the view that the current Employment Tribunal fees regime is flawed and should be reformed.

“Access to justice is essential and must be protected. There is an important role for a proportionate fee that acts as an incentive to ensure that going to tribunal is always a last resort, but that does not require the high fees introduced in 2013. We hope the government swiftly brings forward an alternative approach.

“More broadly, action is needed to return employment tribunals to their original vision – speedy, fair, informal and affordable for both workers and businesses.”

Abigail Trencher, a partner in the employment team with city law firm Birketts, said: “This is a truly historic judgment. There cannot be many legal systems whose judgments are based on individual rights and freedoms that date back to the early 13th Century, and I am proud to be part of such a system where our courts are able to uphold such rights and freedoms.

“It will be interesting to see what steps the Government takes to replace the current system, assuming it still wants to pursue the aim of transferring the costs of the Employment Tribunal system from the taxpayer to the service user, in part if not completely.

“However, it will take time to devise another system or find a level of fees under the existing one which satisfies the key test of not preventing access to justice, and resources are likely to be thin on the ground as all Government departments deal with Brexit. I think it is likely to be some time therefore before a new system, or alternative fees, are introduced.

“The cost the Government will have incurred in putting in place the current system to accept fees and deal with remission applications, on top of the estimated £32 million it will need to refund to previous fee payers, must be enormous and make it critical the Government ensures any replacement system or fee structure is beyond challenge next time around.

“One hopes this very expensive lesson may make future Governments reluctant to rely on secondary legislation to implement bold changes to the employment law landscape – which may provide some reassurance as we move towards Brexit and the concern at the extent to which future Governments may rely on secondary legislation to implement changes to employment legislation following the Great Repeal Bill.

“Finally – what implications may this judgment have for the civil courts and the huge fee hikes that have been introduced in recent years? Lord Reed’s comment at paragraph 87 must be pertinent: “The Lord Chancellor cannot, however, lawfully impose what fees he chooses in order to achieve these purposes. It follows that the Fees Order will be ultra vires if there is a real risk that persons will effectively be prevented from having access to justice”.